digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at rollingstone.com

The Future (According to Radiohead)

rollingstone.com — How Radiohead ditched the record business and still topped the charts.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • gothicform, on 03/17/2008, -10/+15Obligatory ***** the RIAA!!!
    • ruug, on 03/17/2008, -2/+1talk about 2 issues ago. you guys don't get real paper magazines anymore, huh?
      • sishgupta, on 03/17/2008, -0/+2No, especially not from rolling stone, an exceptional shell of its former self.
  • robocop1, on 03/17/2008, -20/+9But Radiohead is wrong in they're approach on this because Trent Reznor said so a few days ago,and he's a god on this site and we all suck his dick and agree with everything he says and does.
    • kakwakas, on 03/17/2008, -19/+2Actually, the difference here is just that NIN is decent and Radiohead sucks.
    • beaunewcomb, on 03/17/2008, -2/+14You must have missed the announcement by the label that picked In Rainbows up for Radiohead?

      Before you start making stupid posts like this one, you should follow the news yourself... statements you make are a reflection of your own character, dumbass
    • geoken, on 03/17/2008, -2/+4Radiohead is wrong in their approach because they were picked up by a label and have since stopped their initial online distribution. What does any of that have to do with anything that Trent Reznor said?

      If I make a perfectly logical statement that everyone agrees with does everyone become a mindless lemming if at some later point a popular celebrity agrees/endorses said statement?
  • Mystreaux, on 03/17/2008, -1/+83they didnt ditch the record business
    • beaunewcomb, on 03/17/2008, -1/+12No they did not.
    • Devilboy666, on 03/17/2008, -2/+24No, they said 'Hey look at us everyone we're ditching those evil record labels' and then as soon as everyone bought their record they said 'PSYCHE! Just kidding!'
      • Myonosken, on 03/17/2008, -1/+6Thom Yorke denied the next day that they were trying to fight the record label system, but people still said it.

        Anyway, doesn't really matter as In Rainbows was still a brilliant album.
        • heypetray, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1Brilliant is a little much. OK Computer was brilliant.
    • stokd, on 03/17/2008, -0/+3No, they didn't. They offered a single format download at a lossy quality, and went straight back to selling traditional records without giving fans the choice of which format they wanted. A physical copy is nice but they didn't ditch the record business by any means, the "pay what you feel" experiment was a segway the led to a traditional record sale.

      And yes I realize I basically quoted another interview on Digg but I have no better way of saying it because I suck at life.
  • marklittle, on 03/17/2008, -3/+6From a great height
  • OpalZimbo, on 03/17/2008, -5/+47While Radiohead was more innovative then the regular band, they offered a low quality bit-rate and the inevitable record company release was around the corner. Awesome yes, innovative maybe, ***** the RIAA ...no.
    • elpohl, on 03/17/2008, -3/+5Come on. Do you think the bit-rate difference experienced between Radiohead and NIN's release is THAT different to really perceive a difference AND bitch about it? I don't think the average joe's stereo system is that top notch.
      • heypetray, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1then you fail to recognize a major demographic of recreational music listeners. Not everybody listens to music through cheap earbuds.
    • culbeda, on 03/17/2008, -1/+10They hand out a very good (yet not perfect) copy of one of the best albums of the year for whatever price you want to pay (or not) and you people are still bitching. I listened to that album on the original 160Kbps MP3s at least 100 times on a $1000 receiver and a THX certified set of computer speakers and, at times, on a pair of $300 Shure earbuds. If/when I buy the CD copy of it, it will be to support the band for making one of the best albums in the last 10 years, not because the MP3s aren't sufficient quality.
      I guess what I'm really trying to say here is, get over yourself you ungrateful, whining bitch. I hope you and Trent *I released a predominately cheesy collection of musical doodlings for free and the world love me for it* Reznor are very happy together. (And I own all of his albums including Broken and Fixed)
      • heypetray, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1Broken and Fixed are pretty easy to find. Sorry for coming off snobbish, but I'd be more impressed if you owned some of his rarer material.
    • pseudononymist, on 03/17/2008, -3/+2And they did not release the CD through a major label. So... ***** the RIAA? In a way, yes. But this whole line of argument assumes Radiohead was out to change the industry in the first place, which they have said time and again that they were not--it was just an experiment. So ***** off, naysayers.
      • so1omon, on 03/17/2008, -0/+4ATO Records is distributed by SonyBMG... so that's about as RIAA as you can possibly get.
        • pseudononymist, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1boom goes the dynamite. thx for pointing that out.
    • TheIinLive, on 03/17/2008, -0/+3lol, i knew as a I scrolled down from this article there would be what I call a 'reason-nerd'. Someone who writes a cute little paragraph disagreeing with the article's main idea, whether he fully backs the opinion or not. Truth is, Radiohead lit a fuse and started something that I hope turns into something great for us music fans.
  • poidh, on 03/17/2008, -3/+3Cliff notes?
    • DavidinBoston, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1Radiohead averaged about $2.50 per download on average. Also, there is a "CD2" that has more tracks than the one that was available for download.
      • NeonGod, on 03/17/2008, -0/+5No, the second CD is supplemental and consists of 8 extra songs (2 of which are filler tracks).
  • adammharvey, on 03/17/2008, -13/+4hah yeah ok, so that record that is for sale at Starbucks isnt the radiohead album that was either for free or whatever you wanted to pay for it?

    Screw you radiohead, your just the same as any other money hungry artist.
    • TheCheeks, on 03/17/2008, -2/+4excuse them for trying to cover their production costs and make a lot of money for their CAREER. let them make all the money they want on this new buisness model instead.
    • emmeron, on 03/17/2008, -0/+2For shame, someone wants money for their labors? That means they suck huh? The file share change will change the way artists make money as Trent Reznor has shown (and yes, Radiohead shows this too, whatever Trent has to say about 'em). It doesn't mean that people will ever keep making albums without getting paid for it. Silly communists.
    • juicebag, on 03/17/2008, -0/+9Funny that you say that, because Trent Reznor made more money off of his album than he would with a normal label release.
      • WallnutBoy, on 03/17/2008, -3/+1Yes, but Trent Reznor is generally much more popular than Radiohead... This is all well and good for people like him, but Radiohead really aren't that much well known ANYMORE. (I stress that because they were very popular, and still are a great band in my books) And lets not talk about new bands starting up.

        Radiohead tried the 'pay what you think' idea, and I believe (correct me if i'm wrong) that a considerable amount of people, or the majority of people, paid nothing or pretty much nothing. So what are they to do?
        I also hear Muse are planning their next album to be self-published. Theres also Enter Shikari who created their own label and signed themselves, effectively.
        • Myonosken, on 03/17/2008, -1/+3"but Radiohead really aren't that much well known ANYMORE"
          Every Radiohead album since OK Computer has topped the UK Charts.
          In Rainbows got to #1 in 14 countries.
          Radiohead are still one of the most demanded bands for headlining festivals and are doing a world tour which has mostly sold out.

          How the ***** is that not being well known? Outside of the internets, Radiohead are far more well known the NIN- at least in Europe.
  • sherbertbones, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1That Outside Lands Fest lineup better be announced soon...but other than that yay!
  • leonwehttam, on 03/17/2008, -4/+52thanks for last months article.....btw NIN did it better
    • theWrkncacnter, on 03/17/2008, -1/+3But honestly, not as many people cared
    • ChooChoo3000, on 03/17/2008, -6/+6How do you figure he did it "better"? 1) When Radiohead did it, it was the first time anyone has done something like this so there's no way of measuring it to anything prior 2) Reznor completely ripped off the idea from Radiohead but did it with a ***** artist that NO ONE gives a ***** about and 3) Released a series of horrible instrumental tracks in various formats so he would appear like he did it "better"

      Also, don't forget the obvious - Radiohead's album kicks the ***** out of NIN's new material...You know I'm right...
      • cyrusfx808, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1yeah its funny how tech nerds gloss over your last point like its meaningless...
      • BabyWookie, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1"Radiohead's album kicks the ***** out of NIN's new material...You know I'm right..."

        That depends on your taste in music, really. I, personally, always liked the dark, noisy, soundtracky, dark ambient, experimental *****. I like Trent's new album a lot. I haven't checked out "In Rainbows" yet, because I've never been a huge Radiohead fan, but I will soon. To each their own though...
    • aredcalledblue, on 03/17/2008, -2/+1They wouldn't have done it at all if it weren't for Radiohead.... Douche....
    • deadbaby, on 03/18/2008, -0/+1There's a big difference between a band like Radiohead, who tops worldwide sales charts with every album, and NiN, who does not. I'm not talking about musical quality here -- just sales figures. Radiohead had a lot more to lose.
  • emmeron, on 03/17/2008, -2/+16Rolling Stone: we've wanted to sex radiohead for over a decade.
  • spahndirge, on 03/17/2008, -3/+36LOL at anyone who takes this article serious.
    Rolling Stone magazine telling us about the future of music?
    • culbeda, on 03/17/2008, -6/+2Does anyone take anyone who says "LOL" on Digg seriously? (What are you, 12?)
    • matty80211, on 03/17/2008, -1/+4200 win points for you buddy. "Rolling Stone" and "future of music" are things that should never be paired. Rolling stone, the history of music? maybe, but I'm sure they would get that all wrong too.

      NIN actually ditched the label
    • cyrusfx808, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1well, they did describe Justin Timberlake as an "edgy performer" in 2003, and behold! Overplayed commercial pop music has never been more dangerous!
  • beaunewcomb, on 03/17/2008, -5/+15The bottom line is they went about it the wrong way. Pardon the reference to NIN, but they made (and are still making) a TON of money off of Ghosts because why? They were innovative from every perspective. They offered collector's items which probably made up for much of the freeloading. They uploaded their own torrent (with images for each song) which I think gains a lot of trust from their fans.

    The bottom line is, NIN had an ORIGINAL product and stuck with its distribution model, Radiohead did not.
    • stokd, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1What would be the point of offering a "pay what you like" model when the full download of all 36 songs is $5? If you want to pay more buy one of the more expensive sets and have something physical in your hands, and still get the digital download for free. If you don't think it's worth $5...well go find a torrent I guess, although I can't see any reason to not just pay for it when it's that cheap.
  • mattcampbell, on 03/17/2008, -3/+12For those of you who like to read an article on an entire page instead of eight:
    http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/18064095/th ...
  • mattcampbell, on 03/17/2008, -7/+3For those of you who like to read an article on an entire page instead of eight:
    http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/18064095/th ...
  • Woecip, on 03/17/2008, -6/+22Radiohead did nothing for the "future" of music. They still use old world mindsets to seel their albums. NIN on the other hand has moved on and is in the future.
    • thailand1972, on 03/17/2008, -1/+1NIN's model is only the future for established bands - of which all have their days numbered anyway. What about the future unknown musicians? We need a model for them that also helps promote them. Saul Williams got hand from Reznor, but how to scale up that kind of help to thousands of unknowns with talent?
    • cyrusfx808, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1what's so "old world" about selling an album via download from your own website (before Trent Reznor ever did btw), and more importantly, why are people digging this drivel up?
  • fatfreddyscat, on 03/17/2008, -10/+2now if only good artist would do this.
  • welfinator, on 03/17/2008, -4/+13its so annoying that half the people here on digg criticize radiohead for either going about it the wrong way, or claiming the bitrate was too low, well you guys have it completely wrong, first off radiohead didn't release the album like this for us, NO. instead they had this release which they more so called a "leak", restrict any other people on the web leaking it, because they hate leaks. Second as you can read in the article and their biography radiohead believes (jhonny in specific) that people arguing about bitrate is just some 40 year old guy trying to get the same feeling in music with his trillion dollar soundsystem as he got when he was a teenager

    finally be happy that you got the album for free especially since its mad good
    and stop bitching!

    /rant
    • dygel, on 03/17/2008, -3/+1He can believe that all he likes. That doesn't change that audiophiles drive digital music technology. You don't pander to the digitial music crowd with one hand and wag your finger at them with the other.
      • pseudononymist, on 03/17/2008, -0/+2haha what?? Because SACD and audio DVDs are all the rage now, except they aren't.
      • Rheic, on 03/17/2008, -1/+2Nobody gives a ***** about "audiophiles".
        • brianara3, on 03/17/2008, -2/+0I give a ***** about my low bitrate MP3 sounding like it's playing in a bucket or tunnel.
      • cyrusfx808, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1"audiophiles drive digital music technology"

        yeah sorry nobody cares. that's what people who have too much money and time on their hands like to think.

        what good is making a sound system whose thousand-dollar fine-tunings aren't even perceptible to the human ear?
  • evilmregg, on 03/17/2008, -6/+4Buried as inaccurate. Baiting and switching does not equal ditching the record industry.
  • goodfeets, on 03/17/2008, -2/+7"How Radiohead and NIN used the traditional record labels to build a giant loyal fanbase and then complained about the very same record industry" or "How the so-called future of music (regardless of bit rate) is nearly useless to artists without the support of a muti-billion dollar conglomerate."
  • myass666mlong, on 03/17/2008, -10/+2man , when me open page and see those ugly faces i start to laugh
    look at them ahhaha
    anyway the autor is idiot and who the ***** are radiohead ?
  • dygel, on 03/17/2008, -1/+5I really wish people would quit making this a Radiohead versus NIN thing. That said, Reznor had a point: Radiohead never said "***** the system". What they did with In Rainbows was a nice gesture, but they never did follow through. And they certainly did NOT drop their label; you can't get In Rainbows for free anymore. Leastways, not without firing up your torrent tracker...
    • pseudononymist, on 03/17/2008, -1/+1Yes they did. The CD was not released through EMI--they went with an independent label instead.
      • dygel, on 03/18/2008, -0/+1The result is the same. Once the label got involved, In Rainbows was no longer available as a pay-as-you-like download. Nope, it was marketed strictly as a plastic peesachit from that point forward.

        An independent label is still a record label. The problem in the music biz isn't "the big labels." It's the labels, period.
  • tcpip4lyfe, on 03/17/2008, -2/+2I just got my ticket for their may 14th show in St Louis. Im so excited I shat an actual brick.
  • HanSolo69, on 03/17/2008, -11/+5***** NIN and Radiohead. I moved on into the future of music the day I started pirating.
    • thailand1972, on 03/17/2008, -3/+1Well said - Reznor / Radiohead are for those woolly animals who have no mind to unearth music that's been created by bands not signed (or formally) signed to a label.
  • iamondigghaha, on 03/17/2008, -0/+6Old story is old.
  • wafflesomd, on 03/17/2008, -2/+11I'm more impressed with what NIN did.
  • Briankh3, on 03/17/2008, -5/+1Radiohead played possum. Bait and switch at the cost of their fans. ***** Radiohead!
    • culbeda, on 03/17/2008, -2/+1"Played possum"? Everyone is acting like they released the album on 64Kbps MP3's or something.
      The immature hatred exhibited by many Digg users, like yourself, is really off-putting.
      • Briankh3, on 03/17/2008, -0/+2They gave everyone the false pretense they would be releasing their album online, exclusively, for whatever their fans wanted to pay for it. Their fans supported them by donating money. They gave their fans a sub-par quality recording and shorted them 2 tracks. Then they relased a quality version of the album +2 tracks through a record company. Radiohead has already admitted that what they did was a marketing ploy for the "real" release of their album.

        Besides Radiohead didn't "ditch the record business." If that were so, they wouldn't even be on the charts or the radio for that matter.
  • raffyoh, on 03/17/2008, -3/+3oh please, can everyone get off radiohead's nuts? radiohead is established to the point where they can pull this off. they have a borderline obsessive fanbase. they became popular being on a major... get over that they released an album by themselves and it did really well. omg and why is everyone on nin's nuts as well? the past few nin albums have been such crap
    • everslim101, on 03/17/2008, -0/+3With Teeth was decent... Year Zero was ***** amazing... Ghosts I-IV was... meh...
      • culbeda, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1I thought they were both good, but not "***** amazing"? I completely agree about Ghosts I-IV, however. Those tracks aren't even really b-side worthy.
  • daxsymbiont, on 03/17/2008, -0/+3their success on the latest album is TREMENDOUS.

    some were saying it's "dissappointing" that they "only" got on average $5 a copy.

    "only"? ONLY? If any downloaded material got $5 *a piece* it'd be AWESOME for a any artist.
    • Bentis, on 03/17/2008, -0/+3Compared to the like 5 cents they get through a label, I'd say it is indeed a tremendous success for the artist.
    • brianara3, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1That also doesn't take in to count the people that downloaded for free and then went back and paid $10 for it. They would be seen as paying $5/ea for the downloads.
  • culbeda, on 03/17/2008, -2/+4I wouldn't say they've been crap, but Ghosts certainly wasn't anything to write home about, despite the glorification by some critics and many Diggers. I would personally rather have a 10 star product at 160Kbps for free than a 4 star product at 256Kbps.
  • mrwhitethc, on 03/17/2008, -5/+3NIN FTW!
    • BeanTeddyMagic, on 03/17/2008, -1/+1RADIOHEAD FTW
    • brianara3, on 03/17/2008, -1/+0buried for over use of FTW buzz term! Its a 9 letter sentence people... TYPE IT OUT!
  • truthliesverbs, on 03/17/2008, -0/+0"The download plan was hatched by Radiohead's managers Chris Hufford and Bryce Edge ("when they were a bit stoned," notes guitarist and multi-instrumentalist Jonny Greenwood)"
  • electrifried, on 03/17/2008, -2/+7the only reason radiohead's been so successful is coz they used gimmick marketing.
  • nshady, on 03/17/2008, -1/+2Eight pages long, and worth every word.
  • Velvolver, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1To bad they pussy footed into it and then backed out. Good thing trent was there to take the cake, since he had been giving the labels a big F U before radio head even made their half hearted attempts
  • namelessXsilent, on 03/17/2008, -0/+08 pages... really?
  • idiggitall, on 03/17/2008, -1/+1Radiohead is making a note here:

    HUGE SUCCESS!
  • tells, on 03/17/2008, -0/+0They had to be stoned to think of this idea? Has rolling stone given trent reznor this much exposure for this? Let's not give radiohead a title they don't deserve. Great artists? yes. Revolutionaries? hardly.
  • mliving, on 03/17/2008, -1/+3Radiohead didn't change the industry they just used some of the industry tricks to hype an average album.

    NIN and Trent Reznor specifically are changing the industry. I purchased by copy of Ghosts and then downloaded it using bitorrent because it was faster. Trent Reznor at least had the courage to tell his recording companying to piss off when they insisted on screwing over their fans.

    Radiohead on the other hand still has a Recording company that screws over their fans.
  • gplpark92, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1I will stop, I will stop at nothing.
    Say the right things when electioneering
    I trust I can rely on your vote.
  • Turbojugend27, on 03/17/2008, -2/+0haha, this article is terrible. First off, the whole release on the internet needs to be done by a brand new band, that hasn't already had billions spent by a record label worldwide marketing them. Sure ditch your labels now Radiohead and NIN but they made you what you are today.

    Plus 160 k Mp3 release a bit early before having a label release it? Give me a break. Radiohead is about as revolutionary as Britney Spears.
  • Sunshine75, on 03/17/2008, -0/+0Frankly, I love Radiohead and this article is beyond bizarre so I'll just have to check it out for myself.
  • TheKappa, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1TL,DR
  • canutedechou, on 03/17/2008, -0/+0i buy rolling stone only coss i saw radiohead at the front cover
    and yes
    if radiohead is not the future?
    then who is it?
    no doubts about it.
  • ALink2ThePast, on 03/18/2008, -0/+1Actually using fishes is correct RS
    If you are talking about more than one of the same type of fish then the plural is fish
    But if you are talking about many different types, then the plural is fishes
    So assuming there was more than one species of fish attacking Yorke, he was grammatically correct
  • lolo2007, on 06/22/2008, -0/+0haha, this article is terrible. First off, the whole release on the internet needs to be done by a brand new band, that hasn't already had billions spent by a record label worldwide marketing them. Sure ditch your labels now Radiohead and NIN but they made you what you are today.

    Plus 160 k Mp3 release a bit early before having a label release it? Give me a break. Radiohead is about as revolutionary as Britney Spears

    http://ladies.paramegsoft.com/
    http://game.paramegsoft.com/
    http://girls.paramegsoft.com/
    http://www.paramegsoft.com/
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.